The issue was whether a decree against an HUF can be executed against the Karta’s personal assets. The Bombay High Court held that a Karta has unlimited personal liability for unsatisfied HUF debts, permitting execution beyond HUF assets.
Delhi High Court held that the Initiating Officer has given reasons to believe as to how petitioner is a Benamidar. Further, writ is not admitted as petitioner has an efficacious remedy before Adjudicating Officer under Section 26 of the Benami Act.
The High Court held that a review cannot be entertained without a clear error or new evidence. Re-arguing the case on merits was found impermissible.
The High Court quashed reassessment proceedings initiated after the company had already been liquidated by NCLT, holding such action legally unsustainable.
The High Court held that exemption under Section 11 cannot be denied merely because Form 10 was filed belatedly. The key takeaway is that substantive tax benefits for charitable trusts prevail over procedural lapses.
The High Court suspended the jail sentence in a tax offence case during pendency of revision. The key takeaway is that substantial grounds in revision justify interim relief.
The Bombay High Court held that assignment of long-term leasehold rights in immovable property does not constitute a supply of services under the GST law. The Court quashed the GST demand, ruling that such transfers fall outside the scope of taxable supply.
The High Court held that a single notice covering several financial years violates Section 73 of the CGST Act. Each assessment year must be proceeded against independently within its own limitation period.
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that since all the ingredients of commission of an offence punishable u/s. 138 of the NI Act were duly satisfied. Thus, Trial Court had rightly convicted the accused of the commission of an offence punishable u/s. 138 of the NI Act. However, sentence is reduced to six months imprisonment.
Delhi High Court held that Dispute Resolution Panel [DRP] cannot merely approve the conclusion of TPO without giving independent findings. Accordingly, writ dismissed as no substantial question arise in the petition.
